Related Links

A phrase declaring that life begins “at fertilization” tucked into new abortion legislation in Kansas is creating concern among abortion rights advocates that the wording will inspire new attempts to prevent the procedure.

Supporters of the measure said the language is no more than a statement of principle — similar to those found in several states, including neighboring Missouri — rather than an attempt to prevent any pregnancies from being terminated. But advocates on both sides of the issue acknowledge the wording could prove helpful to abortion opponents over time.

The bill, sent late Friday to Gov. Sam Brownback, would block potential tax breaks for abortion providers and ban them from furnishing materials or instructors for public school sex education classes. It also outlaws sex-selection abortions and spells out in greater detail what information doctors must provide to women before an abortion.

The measure’s provision declaring that life begins at fertilization says that “unborn children have interests in life, health and well-being that should be protected” and that their parents also have “protectable interests” in their children’s well-being. A similar idea is embodied in “personhood” measures in other states, which are aimed at revising their constitutions to ban abortion; none have been enacted, though the question will be put to North Dakota voters in 2014.

However, Kansas lawmakers aren’t trying to change the state constitution to ban abortions, and the provision notes that any rights suggested by the language are limited by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Should Brownback — a Republican and a strong abortion opponent — sign the bill as expected, Kansas would become the 14th state to have such language in its laws, according to the National Right to Life Committee.

Many anti-abortion legislators see ‘at fertilization’ statements as symbolic. But it could underpin lawsuits by prospective parents or grandparents who want to block abortions or be cited by abortion opponents in pushing law enforcement officials to scrutinize clinics, said Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue.

“For me, this is just delightful,” Newman said. “It opens up so many avenues.”

Kansas isn’t the only state to seek new abortion restrictions during this year’s legislative sessions. Last month, Arkansas banned most abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy, and a couple weeks later, North Dakota’s governor signed into a law a measure that prohibits abortions as early as the sixth week.

Abortion rights advocates said Kansas’ new restrictions won’t be as severe as those states, but they also don’t trust assertions from abortion opponents that the language on when life begins represents only a statement of principles.

“Could it be used as a tool of harassment? Absolutely,” said Holly Weatherford, lobbyist and program director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas and Western Missouri.

But so far, similar language in other states — including Illinois, Nebraska, Ohio and Pennsylvania — has failed to trigger high-profile court challenges, experts say.

A preamble to Missouri’s abortion restrictions that states that life begins at conception has been in place since 1986 and has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said states can “make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion.” The only notable effect in Missouri came in 2010, when a law required that women wanting an abortion must be given a brochure that includes a statement taken from the preamble: “The life of each human being begins at conception.”

Paul Linton, a constitutional scholar and special counsel to the Thomas More Society in Chicago, said Illinois’ “fertilization” language is part of the preamble to the 1975 Illinois Abortion Act. But it doesn’t have any substantive effect and lacks enough detail to reinstate pre-Roe vs. Wade abortion law in the state.

“It’s more of a policy expression or a wish than it is substantive language,” Linton said.

Kansas House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lance Kinzer, an attorney and Olathe Republican who opposes abortion, said he sees “zero chance” that lawsuits filed against providers to block abortions or shut providers down would be successful under his state’s new language.

“It is only an aspirational statement,” he said, adding, “Symbols are important.”

But Talcott Camp, deputy director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, said the language could eventually “open the door to extreme interpretation of other laws. It provides something that future bill sponsors would point to, and say, ‘This is already Kansas law.’”

The new restrictions would take effect July 1, a little more than four years after Wichita Dr. George Tiller — then among the few in the U.S. known to perform late-term abortions — was shot to death as he served as an usher at his church. His killer, Scott Roeder, said he was defending the unborn.

Kansas’ abortion laws have been significantly restricted after Brownback took office in January 2011 and called on legislators to create “a culture of life.” Since then, the state has banned most abortions after the 22nd week of pregnancy, restricted private health insurance coverage for elective abortions, required doctors to obtain written permission from parents and guardians before terminating a minor’s pregnancy and provide more legal protections for health care providers who refuse to participate in abortions.

Attempts to impose special health and safety regulations for providers and to prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving public funds to provide non-abortion, family planning services are still being challenged in court.

Since Brownback’s been at the helm, the number of abortions performed in Kansas has dropped 11 percent.

___

Associated Press Writers David Crary in New York, Maria Fisher in Kansas City, Mo., David Lieb in Jefferson City, Mo., and John O’Connor in Springfield, Ill., contributed to this report. Follow John Hanna on Twitter at www.twitter.com/apjdhanna.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

It is true. Every life begins at conception, but not every conception ends in a life. 50% of those so called 'lives' never implant and go off into some fertilized egg heaven somewhere. Of those that do, another 20% will abort naturally. Then another 2% will never become a living person because of outside forces like falls, accidents, disease, and abortion. We should worry about the fertilized eggs who DO become living people and stop obsessing about those that do not. Women are mature enough and intelligent enough to make personal private medical decisions without interference from strangers and politicians.

So, sperm donors - regardless of financial or other support during the pregnancy - have a "protectable interest" in a fertilized egg. Can he sue the woman for negligence if she miscarries? If he decides a birth defect was caused by something she did during the pregnancy?

Kansas law is regressing so rapidly. Legislation passed to make women second class citizens - at least for nine months - by granting the courts and the male sexual partner the ability to control the pregnant woman's actions whenever those actions might affect partner's interest?

It is only rational that so many educated women with financial resources are choosing (or have chosen) to not have children. The power to control the pregnancy and to control how a child is raised is simply too uncertain.

Is the next step a constitutional amendment granting the government the same "protectable interest"?

Pacifist. It is no wonder people consider the crazy cons the Kansas Taliban. What's next? Not letting the little girl baby making machines to go school anymore? Of course, they should not be allowed to vote. They aren't mature enough or intelligent enough to make personal private medical decisions for themselves so why should they vote? But, then you aren't smart enough to open a dictionary and look up the word 'murder'. And you think women are stupid?

Some women abort babies. It is her body and she can do what she wants. She can be responsible or irresponsible. RoeVWade is bad law.....It is the law, but it is bad law. It allows the irresponsible to rid themselves of responsibility. Every one loses in an abortion.

Some women choose to have the child. That women is responsible for her actions. Every one wins in that action.

Some seem to think that because it is the law its okay to abort a human being.

Digger you been hanging around zippy too long? I am not against women having control over their baby making equiptment but lets face it there are other ways to prevent unwanted births. BEFORE conception might be a better time to consider that.

Intelligent people shouldn't wait until its a medical decision in most cases. Not saying a woman and her doctor shouldn't decide many cases but you know what I am sick and tired of people that think it is ok to take a life because of inconvence.

Some people seem to think everyone that disagrees with this is Kansas Taliban. No I am not Kansas Taliban and I think Kansans are in general smart enough to make their own decisions in most things. Those that are not usually will end up showing they need help in things. Not forced into deciding because of some darn law or another.

In most cases if a baby is conceived and carried full term there will be someone looking for a child to love and a mother shouldn't be forced into raising a child she doesn't want. Will it boil down to costing money? Maybe but should life and death be boiled down to dollars and cents?

Call me names if you want to. I have been called names of one kind or another most of my life by some of the biggest name callers there are. But I still get up every day and do the things I am suppose to do to make life the best it can be for the most people I can.

I am probably one of those beings I speak up for. I am glad I wasn't aborted even though my mother probably was one of those woman that had more intelligence then she had desire to have a child.

And digger if you want to make arrangements to have your intelligence tested I will match my intelligence with yours any day of the week. If you think only things in the dictionary meanings actually mean things you and I have totally different standards. I don't need go to some printed form or take an opinion poll to know right from wrong.

It seems to me that you have some grandiose idea that anything goes here.......

It is obviously the "left leaning liberal loons" at work on you again.

Maybe I have given you more credit than I should have.

Once again, a women can do anything that she wants to with her body.

Prostitution is illegal, abortion is not. Both are wrong. Isn't it just possible that Roe v Wade is off the mark here? Where is responsibility, self control, condoms, etc.,,,,,?

In the mind of a liberal both should be glorified by all....It is as old as mankind.....

We are attempting to un-civilize with the acceptance of these types of activities.

Abortion is as old as mankind. That does not make it right. A civilized society should not endorse that type of activity in the name of a woman's God given right. If she chooses to exercise the act, let that be between her and her maker, not a civilized society

This Country is a Country of laws that attempt and intends to keep society civilized.

Some of humanity believe that abortion is murder and uncivilized, and that will not change.

you can outlaw abortions but it is still going to happen. You can charge providers with murder, it will still occur. You can charge the women with murder, but they will still seek out an abortion. We've tried banning alcohol, didn't work well. We've banned different sorts of gambling at various times, didn't work well. We set DUI and speeding laws, people still ignore them. We've banned most narcotics and they are still around most everybody knows somebody to talk to who can find some for you - regardless of where you live or work. We spend a lot of time and effort trying to abortions when we should be trying to stop it from being needed, but then teaching sex ed and contraceptions is big bad no no. No matter how moral you will claim to be, the odds of each of you having out-of-wedlock sex is pretty good - except for those of you who live the glass houses with our guv and have never sinned, at least not something as bad as sex for nothing more but pure enjoyment! We cut taxes for the rich, drug test the poor, cut $ for medical treatment for the poor and elderly and cut ed funding for the children who are born. We still don't have a budget and the legislature has decided that it is OK to have alcohol in the Capitol. College dorms and stadiums and arenas are a no no, but the house of holy where the orders from on high emerge will let you get tanked! This from a state that banned alcohol before the 18th amendment and kept it banned after the 21st amendment! Boy, for a conservative state that abhors change .........

FanofIke, you are totally right. What I find amazing and amusing are the people that get the hottest under the collar about this subject and call names etc jump to conclusions and say things that weren't said.

In my opinion abortion is murder and I would not want one. I said yep women are intelligent and got taken to task for what digger decided I think.

intelligent, but shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions. Even given all of the evidence that the state is anti-abortion, and anti-child (with all of the programs it is de-funding), you still insist that it is better for an unwanted child to come into the world. You live in a Pollyanna state of being with this naive ideology. Unless you can personally ensure that every State-prevented abortion, which results in a live birth, will be loved and taken care of, step away from the discussion, you're all talk and no action.

Oh, Passie..YOU are the one calling women stupid. And you tout your so called intelligence but you seem to think that you are just so smart that YOU get to make decisions for women rather than letting them make them for themselves? Not only do you believe your superior intelligence makes you the one to make decisions for women, you also get to decide if their 'reasons' are good enough? Oh, ALL HAIL the great Pacifier! WHO are you to tell women that their abortions are for 'convenience'? WHO are you to decide exactly what taking responsibility is? Choosing to get an abortion IS TAKING responsibility. Contraception fails every day. The arrogance of someone who claims to be so intelligent only proves how truly clueless you are. Do you really think women give a rat's behind how intelligent you claim you are? They don't! Do you really think women care what you consider to be an abortion of convenience? They don't..nor should they! You are not only WRONG, you are also in the minority. Let women make their own decisions and YOU worry about your own life decisions. You should be happy your mother was pro-choice. She chose to have you and was not forced to have you.

Where did you see me say I don't believe women should make their own decisions? I am begining to think no one that posts here is intelligent. I said I BELIEVE abortion is murder. There are lots of people who are unwanted. I believe you don't go around killing people cause they are unwanted.

What I did say and always have said is people need to take responsibility for preventing pregnancy other ways then abortion and if an unwanted child is conceived for the most part that child should be given up after birth. I have agreed medical decisions should be between a patient and their Doctor so sometimes even then there may be reason for termination of pregnancy.

I also don't believe most of the time laws should be written. So guess, yes, I am mostly talk and no action cause I believe most of the time no law should be written forcing others to live what I believe.

Telling me to step away from a discussion because of my beliefs shows me more about why we are the society we have become then if we need a law about abortion. Guess its your way or get off the highway.

I did not say my opinion overrules the Supreme Court.

Conclusion jumping seems to be number one exercise for people with reading comprehension difficulty.

Digger do you ever think for yourself? You have no idea what I know and what I do not know. I know the dictionary definition of murder and I also know the definition of murder that the Holy Spirit has taught me.

The latest spewing of unconstitutional anti-abortion insanity by the Kansas legislature that will cost Kansas taxpayers another several hundred thousand dollars to defend in Federal Court.

Victorian times indeed: the misguided bill seeks to place into the law a declaration that life begins at fertilization (directly contravening the United States Supreme Court), banning abortion clinic volunteers from participating in sex education classes in public schools and eliminating state tax breaks for clinics performing abortions.

There's no argument to be had on philosophical grounds, because, well, how would you? And the law is a poor instrument to use to define vague philosophical questions.

The purpose of the law is to protect society. Does any societal good come from outlawing abortion? Answer: no.

Does any harm come from it: yes.

That's it.

Moreover, if you want to prevent abortions, prohibition is a poor way to do so. Abortions not performed for health reasons are because, in a libertarian/materialistic mindset, having a kid is the worst thing a woman can possibly do. Trading the expense of prenatal care and annoyance of pregnancy and the pain of childhood and at least a hundred grand in childrearing expenses for increases wages and more academic achievement and more career opportunities... You want fewer abortions, you'll fix some of that.

If a person exercised their rights and thought abortion was murder that would not be calling them anything other then what they themself thought.

I am not a poster that usually calls people names. I am a poster that says what I think and allows others to make up their mind what they think.

I also try to get other forms of exercise then jumping to conclusions. When another poster makes a statement I take that statement and think about it. Don't always think their statement is necessarily correct but I try not to take the statement and run off to totally different conclusions and attribute them to the poster and start calling them names or insulting their intelligence or question their religious beliefs. Most of the posters here I have no idea who they are and what they do with their energy away from this site. I try not to judge people beyond they show to us here.

I sometimes would love to invite posters I consider off base in their thinking to meet some place safe for us both to actually get to know each other a bit. However, in this day and age even to have coffee in lobby of a law center probably would not be wise or safe. Words on a computer site does not allow one to really be themself and I doubt if most posters are what they appear here totally... Either way good or bad

"if an unwanted child is conceived for the most part that child should be given up after birth."

Given up to whom? Healthy white infants are snatched up immediately, but not infant is both healthy and white, and the ones that aren't can languish for years in a perpetually underfunded bureaucratic he11 known as the foster-care system.

How about we improve that system BEFORE we throw hundreds or thousands more kids into it? Oh, that would require money, and a lot of these anti-abortion folks are also stridently in favor of low taxes and little government. You can't have it both ways.

"It is obviously the "left leaning liberal loons" at work on you again." No I am a left leaning liberal and decide for myself. I don't need a 3500 year old book, written for an era that is no more, to dictate what I think is right or wrong. Every society has its mores and therefore what is wrong in one is fine in another and vice versa. (Prostitution is legal in Nevada and many countries throughout the world)

You say, regarding prostituion and abortion-"In the mind of a liberal both should be glorified by all". Now this is typical right wing generalization. The right wing acts on "gut feelings" and hyperbole while the left relys on analyzation. These actions are as old as mankind and will not be altered by legislation. The goal should be to make them both as safe as possible as you are NOT going to stop them from happening. Also, the liberal does not stand on a street corner waving signs such as "GET YOUR ABORTIONS HERE" as you rightie loons proclaim but more like "if you've got a problem, let us help you with it and keep it safe." Then you add " If she chooses to exercise the act, let that be between her and her maker, not a civilized society." And then add "this country is a country of laws that attempts and intends to keep society civilized." First of all, you're reverting to the yesteryear era when you say "maker" as you're assuming that all people believe as you do(judeo-christian). Then you use an oxymoron-"not a civilized society" and "keep society civilized".

In summation you say "Some of humanity believe that abortion is murder and uncivilized, and that will not change." The majority of humanity(or the part in this country) believes it not to be and this will not change. So what is your point? Until they make you a "maker" and until they place you in charge of individual women's rights, YOU have no say in the matter. I have no say. No "maker"(until one comes down and actually speaks without going through myriads of scribes with different interpretations) has a say. The one person that has a say is the WOMAN(until men can reproduce)herself.

"Isn't it just possible that Roe v Wade is off the mark here?" Good question. The answer is "NO" Roe v Wade is not off mark, it may be to you but it is not for me. This is the problem in this debate. The anti-abortionist think they know it all and abortion is "murder" while the pro-abortionist feel it is not murder, but a surgical procedure that ends the problems a live birth would cause the woman, and sometimes the man involved. When people look at one aspect of a problem they are stuck in stupidity. There are many good valid reasons why a pregnancy needs to be ended. Sorry you and the other rigid anti-abortionist thinkers cannot see this.